So Voter ID laws discriminate huh?

[olevetonahill]

The Ironic NAACP Protest

http://news.yahoo.com/ironic-naacp-protest-114232330--politics.html


Yet here were the “Important Dos and Don’ts for Marchers.” After noting “This march and rally will be conducted in a peaceful and nonviolent manner in accordance with the historic custom of the civil-rights movement,” participants were told “DO bring photo identification (driver’s license, passport, or other valid photo ID) with you and keep on your person at all times.” So the Republicans in North Carolina were trying to disenfranchise blacks via voter-ID laws, but the state NAACP’s requirement of the same for marching in a protest rally is not offensive? Oh, the irony

[rock on sooner]

One way to look at that is for the marchers to have appropriate
ID when they were arrested, so there wouldn't be any confusion
and the proper persons get the arrest record....:biggrin:

[olevetonahill]

One way to look at that is for the marchers to have appropriate
ID when they were arrested, so there wouldn't be any confusion
and the proper persons get the arrest record....:biggrin:

Funny. :very_drunk:

[Soonerjeepman]

Irony (double standard) is always on the lib's side. They just don't see it.

[rock on sooner]

Irony (double standard) is always on the lib's side. They just don't see it.

Quite the contrary. I DO see it, Jeep, Geez, a lib makes a joke ( or tries to) and
still the con goes after him...:tongue:

[olevetonahill]

Quite the contrary. I DO see it, Jeep, Geez, a lib makes a joke ( or tries to) and
still the con goes after him...:tongue:

I got yer joke LOL

[olevetonahill]

Whats funny to me is all the Libs who have Jumped on here saying how bad a Law like this is for minorities are strangely silent on this deal.:biggrin:

[Soonerjeepman]

Quite the contrary. I DO see it, Jeep, Geez, a lib makes a joke ( or tries to) and
still the con goes after him...:tongue:

lol...nah Rock, it was on the original post...I thought your joke was funny..lol...

[8timechamps]

I've said it before on here, and I'll say it again:

There is no justified reason that voter ID laws shouldn't already be enacted. None.

[lexsooner]

I've said it before on here, and I'll say it again:

There is no justified reason that voter ID laws shouldn't already be enacted. None.

You mean other than the five year Dept. Of Justice study commissioned by W which studied hundreds of instances of alleged voter fraud (voters impersonating other) across the country, culminating in a finding of not a single instance of fraud. The most "egregious" cases involved nothing more than voter mistakes, not fraud. Mind you, this study was done entirely while the GOP held the Executive Branch and a Bush appointee was the Attorney General. The intent behind these laws is quite clear.

[okie52]

Quite the contrary. I DO see it, Jeep, Geez, a lib makes a joke ( or tries to) and
still the con goes after him...:tongue:

You're a target Rockon....it's had to put the safety on...

[olevetonahill]

You mean other than the five year Dept. Of Justice study commissioned by W which studied hundreds of instances of alleged voter fraud (voters impersonating other) across the country, culminating in a finding of not a single instance of fraud. The most "egregious" cases involved nothing more than voter mistakes, not fraud. Mind you, this study was done entirely while the GOP held the Executive Branch and a Bush appointee was the Attorney General. The intent behind these laws is quite clear.

And the "Its Bush's Fault " excuse comes out LOL

[Turd_Ferguson]

You mean other than the five year Dept. Of Justice study commissioned by W which studied hundreds of instances of alleged voter fraud (voters impersonating other) across the country, culminating in a finding of not a single instance of fraud. The most "egregious" cases involved nothing more than voter mistakes, not fraud. Mind you, this study was done entirely while the GOP held the Executive Branch and a Bush appointee was the Attorney General. The intent behind these laws is quite clear.

You're either very naive or very disingenuous. Which is it?

[rock on sooner]

You're a target Rockon....it's had to put the safety on...

Welp, Geez, at least can I hear the safety click?..:cheerful: I do
have pretty good reflexs fer an ol fart...I bet I can git off two, maybe
three rounds.....:angel:

[okie52]

You mean other than the five year Dept. Of Justice study commissioned by W which studied hundreds of instances of alleged voter fraud (voters impersonating other) across the country, culminating in a finding of not a single instance of fraud. The most "egregious" cases involved nothing more than voter mistakes, not fraud. Mind you, this study was done entirely while the GOP held the Executive Branch and a Bush appointee was the Attorney General. The intent behind these laws is quite clear.

Just what is that intent?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Welp, Geez, at least can I hear the safety click?..:cheerful: I do
have pretty good reflexs fer an ol fart...I bet I can git off two, maybe
three rounds.....:angel:

How would a lib get through the gun safe and all the safety locks that quick?

[rock on sooner]

How would a lib get through the gun safe and all the safety locks that quick?

Ummm. lessee, my M1 carbine, 15 round mag, NO flash suppressor, aint
locked up...see, no kids here, long gun, no permit needed and I kin hit what
I'm aimin at...an when that puppy starts up it sounds like WWIII...heh!

[okie52]

Welp, Geez, at least can I hear the safety click?..:cheerful: I do
have pretty good reflexs fer an ol fart...I bet I can git off two, maybe
three rounds.....:angel:

Heh heh...not sporting to not give you some kind of warning.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Ummm. lessee, my M1 carbine, 15 round mag, NO flash suppressor, aint
locked up...see, no kids here, long gun, no permit needed and I kin hit what
I'm aimin at...an when that puppy starts up it sounds like WWIII...heh!

I'll give ya tree fitty for it...plus, PLUS...buy you a beer and shake your hand to thank you for your service.

[lexsooner]

You're either very naive or very disingenuous. Which is it?

Neither. This was the most comprehensive and thorough review of this issue of which I am aware and those pushing it failed to come up with what they were seeking. It is what it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[lexsooner]

And the "Its Bush's Fault " excuse comes out LOL

Naw, Vet, you missed the point. The true intent behind these laws or proposed laws is political. Quite simply, the laws help GOP candidates more than Donk candidates. So, the Pubs pushed for an extensive review of such alleged cases throughout the country hoping to find evidence of fraud, but they came up empty. The point was you can't accuse the Justice study of being biased since it was done under a Pub President and AG (if the study was done under Obama, I am sure that would be the claim). Contrary to their hopes, they did not have the hard evidence to point to in order to try and claim a legitimate need for such laws. If such cases of fraud occur, they are certainly rare and there is no evidence of any pattern or organized efforts to commit such acts. I'm not saying it's not possible or there are will never be such cases, but to claim widespread fraud as the rationale behind such laws is truly disingenuous.

[rock on sooner]

I'll give ya tree fitty for it...plus, PLUS...buy you a beer and shake your hand to thank you for your service.

Heh, my next door neighbor had a modern knock off of the M1 (mine is
vintage...the ones that officers carried in Korea and later to replace the
45 cal sidearm...all the way to early Nam). Sorry, TF, tree fitty wouldn't
even git there, BUT, tha beer(s) wud make fer a lot of conversation!

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE]Naw, Vet, you missed the point.

And you sir have Missed the POINT of this thread, it has nothing to do with or such Laws are needed or Not. It has every thing to do with the Hypocrisy of the NAACP and Dems in general.

They say such lws are UNNEEDED, Yet in order to have a "PEACEFUL" protest all participants are required to have a Photo ID. Can yo not see the Irony of such a stance?

Now as to if they are needed or not . What will it hurt? Obvioulsy if they can get an ID to Protest then they should be able to acquire an ID to vote dont you think?

[8timechamps]

You mean other than the five year Dept. Of Justice study commissioned by W which studied hundreds of instances of alleged voter fraud (voters impersonating other) across the country, culminating in a finding of not a single instance of fraud. The most "egregious" cases involved nothing more than voter mistakes, not fraud. Mind you, this study was done entirely while the GOP held the Executive Branch and a Bush appointee was the Attorney General. The intent behind these laws is quite clear.

If I go to buy beer or Copenhagen, I MUST show ID. If we value voting in this country as much as we profess, is it not worthy of the same requirements to purchase alcohol and/or tobacco?

There is NO good reason why we shouldn't have voter ID laws. If the reason is "well, we checked, and nobody was pretending to be someone they weren't", then that's weak. I bet I could do a study at a few select liquor stores, and not find any "egregious" violations.

I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why we shouldn't require ID to vote.

[8timechamps]

Naw, Vet, you missed the point. The true intent behind these laws or proposed laws is political. Quite simply, the laws help GOP candidates more than Donk candidates. So, the Pubs pushed for an extensive review of such alleged cases throughout the country hoping to find evidence of fraud, but they came up empty. The point was you can't accuse the Justice study of being biased since it was done under a Pub President and AG (if the study was done under Obama, I am sure that would be the claim). Contrary to their hopes, they did not have the hard evidence to point to in order to try and claim a legitimate need for such laws. If such cases of fraud occur, they are certainly rare and there is no evidence of any pattern or organized efforts to commit such acts. I'm not saying it's not possible or there are will never be such cases, but to claim widespread fraud as the rationale behind such laws is truly disingenuous.

IF that's true, then ask yourself "why would that be?".

My point is if we're going to go on the honor system, then why not do it for the purchase of tobacco/alcohol? What about the next time I get pulled over for speeding, should I just tell the cop "trust me, I'm who I say I am". Probably isn't going to get me too far.

Why can't we require voting citizens to provide evidence that they are who they say they are? That isn't some crazy, pie-in-the-sky requirement.

[Soonerjeepman]

Heh, my next door neighbor had a modern knock off of the M1 (mine is
vintage...the ones that officers carried in Korea and later to replace the
45 cal sidearm...all the way to early Nam). Sorry, TF, tree fitty wouldn't
even git there, BUT, tha beer(s) wud make fer a lot of conversation!

nice...the lib has a 15 rounder...:applouse:

[Soonerjeepman]

Ummm. lessee, my M1 carbine, 15 round mag, NO flash suppressor, aint
locked up...see, no kids here, long gun, no permit needed and I kin hit what
I'm aimin at...an when that puppy starts up it sounds like WWIII...heh!

oops...wrong quote~ my bad THIS IS IT!!! :applouse:

[lexsooner]

IF that's true, then ask yourself "why would that be?".

My point is if we're going to go on the honor system, then why not do it for the purchase of tobacco/alcohol? What about the next time I get pulled over for speeding, should I just tell the cop "trust me, I'm who I say I am". Probably isn't going to get me too far.

Why can't we require voting citizens to provide evidence that they are who they say they are? That isn't some crazy, pie-in-the-sky requirement.

8time, the biggest controversies involve the most restrictive voting laws, which typically require a voter to produce a government-issued photo i.d. at the voting precinct on election day. Some laws have even split the hairs more finely and decreed current student photo i.d.s are not acceptable. The whole problem is these highly restrictive laws disproportionately impact certain groups or demographics, namely poorer voters, minorities, and the elderly, or in the case of the student i.ds., younger voters. It is indisputable that the negatively impacted groups, the ones who are less likely to have a government-issued photo i.d., are groups which vote more for the Dems. That's not to say these groups are more dishonest or more likely to engage in fraud, but for example are less likely to own a vehicle and drive. I guess I can't buy the alcohol/tobacco or speeding analogies. Even the states with the least restrictive voting requirements require registration and have some safe guards in place, such as running backgrounds on registrants, i.d. and other official information required on the applications, so it is not as if anyone can show up at the poll and vote without any proof or meeting official requirements. These states first require valid registration application and approval, and then you can vote. Also, remember, we are dealing with a vested right under the respective state law in this case (although not under the Constitution), the right to vote for those who meet the criteria of the law. The Constitutional issues do come into play in regard to the state laws which disproportionately impact certain protected groups. I think we should make voting as simple as possible and as accessible to as many qualified voters as possible, and in the absence of any evidence of problems with voter fraud, why make it harder with more hoops to jump through, unless there is a clear underlying political motive?

[okie52]

8time, the biggest controversies involve the most restrictive voting laws, which typically require a voter to produce a government-issued photo i.d. at the voting precinct on election day. Some laws have even split the hairs more finely and decreed current student photo i.d.s are not acceptable. The whole problem is these highly restrictive laws disproportionately impact certain groups or demographics, namely poorer voters, minorities, and the elderly, or in the case of the student i.ds., younger voters. It is indisputable that the negatively impacted groups, the ones who are less likely to have a government-issued photo i.d., are groups which vote more for the Dems. That's not to say these groups are more dishonest or more likely to engage in fraud, but for example are less likely to own a vehicle and drive. I guess I can't buy the alcohol/tobacco or speeding analogies. Even the states with the least restrictive voting requirements require registration and have some safe guards in place, such as running backgrounds on registrants, i.d. and other official information required on the applications, so it is not as if anyone can show up at the poll and vote without any proof or meeting official requirements. These states first require valid registration application and approval, and then you can vote. Also, remember, we are dealing with a vested right under the respective state law in this case (although not under the Constitution), the right to vote for those who meet the criteria of the law. The Constitutional issues do come into play in regard to the state laws which disproportionately impact certain protected groups. I think we should make voting as simple as possible and as accessible to as many qualified voters as possible, and in the absence of any evidence of problems with voter fraud, why make it harder with more hoops to jump through, unless there is a clear underlying political motive?

So requiring an ID to be displayed that is furnished free by the government would reduce voting from the poor, the ignorant and the irresponsible voters?

Finally, a government program that actually works....

[rock on sooner]

nice...the lib has a 15 rounder...:applouse:

They make a 25 rounder, but mine is "original equipment" and if
I can't getcha with 15 then, WTF....you must be livin right!

[Soonerjeepman]

They make a 25 rounder, but mine is "original equipment" and if
I can't getcha with 15 then, WTF....you must be livin right!

lol...true dat! that's cool, I wish my dad had kept his...served in Korea, after the war...policing.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

When Maria and I sell our absentee ballots, we always demand to see photo ID matricula cards.

[lexsooner]

When Maria and I sell our absentee ballots, we always demand to see photo ID matricula cards.

And by golly you really should, since there is widespread fraud among those committing fraud! Lol. Maria? There should be a law requiring to see her proof of citizenship! And just to be fair, her birth certificate will suffice, as long as it is the long version.

[olevetonahill]

Libs Succ . This aint about VOTER id, Its about ****ing Hypocrisy and Irony
Pay Tention.

[OU_Sooners75]

8time, the biggest controversies involve the most restrictive voting laws, which typically require a voter to produce a government-issued photo i.d. at the voting precinct on election day. Some laws have even split the hairs more finely and decreed current student photo i.d.s are not acceptable. The whole problem is these highly restrictive laws disproportionately impact certain groups or demographics, namely poorer voters, minorities, and the elderly, or in the case of the student i.ds., younger voters. It is indisputable that the negatively impacted groups, the ones who are less likely to have a government-issued photo i.d., are groups which vote more for the Dems. That's not to say these groups are more dishonest or more likely to engage in fraud, but for example are less likely to own a vehicle and drive. I guess I can't buy the alcohol/tobacco or speeding analogies. Even the states with the least restrictive voting requirements require registration and have some safe guards in place, such as running backgrounds on registrants, i.d. and other official information required on the applications, so it is not as if anyone can show up at the poll and vote without any proof or meeting official requirements. These states first require valid registration application and approval, and then you can vote. Also, remember, we are dealing with a vested right under the respective state law in this case (although not under the Constitution), the right to vote for those who meet the criteria of the law. The Constitutional issues do come into play in regard to the state laws which disproportionately impact certain protected groups. I think we should make voting as simple as possible and as accessible to as many qualified voters as possible, and in the absence of any evidence of problems with voter fraud, why make it harder with more hoops to jump through, unless there is a clear underlying political motive?

Thanks for the text wall. Paragraphs are your friend!

That said, why do you believe it will be so hard for a poor minority legal voter to get a FREE VOTER ID? Lets say this ID is the same as your voter registration card. What is the big issue?

Here in Oklahoma, if you wish to vote in any election, from local to national elections, you have to show both your voter card and your state issued ID.

I'm failing to understand why people are worried about it. Why do those that oppose the idea feel it threatens people's rights to vote? How does the idea of having a Voter's ID card take away from the rights of others?

If you got to show an ID to buy things like alcohol or tobacco, what is wrong with having to show an ID to vote? If you have to show an ID to take certain tests (from the SAT/ACT, to college assessments, to paraprofessional, to state licensing tests), how is it wrong to show an ID to vote?

It isn't wrong. It restricts people that are not allowed to vote from voting. It also makes it impossible for people to vote twice.

It will cut down the fraud that does occur. And it has nothing to do with demographics or party lines. It is called making the elections as fair as possible.

That said, if the liberal democrats did in fact do things legit across all areas, then they wouldn't be opposed to it.


And for the OP....bravo! the subject you posted, does in fact show hypocrisy.

[Soonerjeepman]

umm...supposedly you also need a DL to drive...so I'm told~ guess we should do away with that.

No one is saying you have to pass a basic knowledge test in english...THAT would be a legitimate grip for the libs...just go get a frickin ID. Maybe they can't because they are illegal...oh, yes that's it. Silly illegals, wanting to vote in our countries elections. Does any other country allow this?

[okie52]

Thanks for the text wall. Paragraphs are your friend!

That said, why do you believe it will be so hard for a poor minority legal voter to get a FREE VOTER ID? Lets say this ID is the same as your voter registration card. What is the big issue?

Here in Oklahoma, if you wish to vote in any election, from local to national elections, you have to show both your voter card and your state issued ID.

I'm failing to understand why people are worried about it. Why do those that oppose the idea feel it threatens people's rights to vote? How does the idea of having a Voter's ID card take away from the rights of others?

If you got to show an ID to buy things like alcohol or tobacco, what is wrong with having to show an ID to vote? If you have to show an ID to take certain tests (from the SAT/ACT, to college assessments, to paraprofessional, to state licensing tests), how is it wrong to show an ID to vote?

It isn't wrong. It restricts people that are not allowed to vote from voting. It also makes it impossible for people to vote twice.

It will cut down the fraud that does occur. And it has nothing to do with demographics or party lines. It is called making the elections as fair as possible.

That said, if the liberal democrats did in fact do things legit across all areas, then they wouldn't be opposed to it.


And for the OP....bravo! the subject you posted, does in fact show hypocrisy.

Because it requires a minimal degree of competency....

[8timechamps]

8time, the biggest controversies involve the most restrictive voting laws, which typically require a voter to produce a government-issued photo i.d. at the voting precinct on election day. Some laws have even split the hairs more finely and decreed current student photo i.d.s are not acceptable. The whole problem is these highly restrictive laws disproportionately impact certain groups or demographics, namely poorer voters, minorities, and the elderly, or in the case of the student i.ds., younger voters. It is indisputable that the negatively impacted groups, the ones who are less likely to have a government-issued photo i.d., are groups which vote more for the Dems. That's not to say these groups are more dishonest or more likely to engage in fraud, but for example are less likely to own a vehicle and drive. I guess I can't buy the alcohol/tobacco or speeding analogies. Even the states with the least restrictive voting requirements require registration and have some safe guards in place, such as running backgrounds on registrants, i.d. and other official information required on the applications, so it is not as if anyone can show up at the poll and vote without any proof or meeting official requirements. These states first require valid registration application and approval, and then you can vote. Also, remember, we are dealing with a vested right under the respective state law in this case (although not under the Constitution), the right to vote for those who meet the criteria of the law. The Constitutional issues do come into play in regard to the state laws which disproportionately impact certain protected groups. I think we should make voting as simple as possible and as accessible to as many qualified voters as possible, and in the absence of any evidence of problems with voter fraud, why make it harder with more hoops to jump through, unless there is a clear underlying political motive?

I understand your position, but I still think it's a weak one (not your opinion, but the position). Look, to do just about anything in today's world, you have to prove you are who you say you are. Voting should be the same. I'm not going to go as far as to say "if you can't get off your *** to get a free ID, then you don't deserve to vote", but I'm not too far from that. I have an elderly mother (in her 70's) and and elderly grandmother (in her 90's). Both have valid IDs. If it gets to a point that one (or both) is in a controlled living environment (nursing home), then the chances that they would even want to vote are remote. But, if voter ID laws were in place, there are still ways they could keep current even living in a nursing home. So I'm not on board with the elderly excuse.

As for the poor, again free IDs are readily available. Now, if a person chooses not to get one, then they would be choosing not to participate in the voting process. You mentioned that safe guards are in place in some states (possibly all), and an example would be requiring a photo ID to register to vote (which is what I've always had to do). Why is requiring a photo ID at the time of voting any different than requiring one to register? It's not.

The reasons I see against photo ID laws are always the same. It's because it "targets the underprivileged". BS. There are a lot of poor folks out there that work their asses off and have valid photo IDs. The real push back is that a lot of folks that voted Dem in the last two elections would never have voted if required to have ID. I think that speaks to a lot of what is wrong with the party. And for the record, I'm "Independent".

[lexsooner]

I understand your position, but I still think it's a weak one (not your opinion, but the position). Look, to do just about anything in today's world, you have to prove you are who you say you are. Voting should be the same. I'm not going to go as far as to say "if you can't get off your *** to get a free ID, then you don't deserve to vote", but I'm not too far from that. I have an elderly mother (in her 70's) and and elderly grandmother (in her 90's). Both have valid IDs. If it gets to a point that one (or both) is in a controlled living environment (nursing home), then the chances that they would even want to vote are remote. But, if voter ID laws were in place, there are still ways they could keep current even living in a nursing home. So I'm not on board with the elderly excuse.

As for the poor, again free IDs are readily available. Now, if a person chooses not to get one, then they would be choosing not to participate in the voting process. You mentioned that safe guards are in place in some states (possibly all), and an example would be requiring a photo ID to register to vote (which is what I've always had to do). Why is requiring a photo ID at the time of voting any different than requiring one to register? It's not.

The reasons I see against photo ID laws are always the same. It's because it "targets the underprivileged". BS. There are a lot of poor folks out there that work their asses off and have valid photo IDs. The real push back is that a lot of folks that voted Dem in the last two elections would never have voted if required to have ID. I think that speaks to a lot of what is wrong with the party. And for the record, I'm "Independent".

I see your position, so I guess we can agree to disagree on this issue. As always, I enjoy discussing issues with you. You never cease to be professional and civil to everyone on this board.

[OU_Sooners75]

I am still waiting for someone that opposes voter id cards to tell me a legitimate reason as to why they are scared of the idea.

What right does it violate?

If I take my paycheck to a check cashing place or even Wal-Mart, I have to show valid id.

If I go to the airport to board a plane, I have to show a valid id.

If I go withdrawal money from my savings account, I need an id.

If I get pulled over, I need an id.

If I want to go to the hottest night club, I need an id.

If I want to buy a cheap bottle of wine, I need an id.

If I want to join the military, I need an id.

If I want to go to college, . I need an id.

If I want to find a new job, I need an id.

All that and more is fine. But if I want to make it where you need an id to vote...you are like, "oh hell no!"

Makes no sense.

[olevetonahill]

Yet If Im Black and want to make it where you have to have a Photo ID to Protest having a Photo ID then. Oh Hell yes thats fine!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Vet your point is well taken, on the hypocrisy angle, but the rules for participation in the event may have simply been one person's doing - some local NAACP rule-writing dumb-****.

[olevetonahill]

Vet your point is well taken, on the hypocrisy angle, but the rules for participation in the event may have simply been one person's doing - some local NAACP rule-writing dumb-****.

Yawn. Point is NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT. they just keep on harping the same tired assed old arguments that have been said here time after time.

I dont GAF what your point of view is On the Isue of Voter ID . I wanta hear More Laughter and Jokes about the Hypocrisy of the FACT thaat they are rquiring a PHOTO ID to Protest the Requirement of having a PHOTO ID.

Sheesh people this aint ****in Rocket surgery

[Soonerjeepman]

to some it is...

[Soonerjeepman]

I am still waiting for someone that opposes voter id cards to tell me a legitimate reason as to why they are scared of the idea.

What right does it violate?

If I take my paycheck to a check cashing place or even Wal-Mart, I have to show valid id.

If I go to the airport to board a plane, I have to show a valid id.

If I go withdrawal money from my savings account, I need an id.

If I get pulled over, I need an id.

If I want to go to the hottest night club, I need an id.

If I want to buy a cheap bottle of wine, I need an id.

If I want to join the military, I need an id.

If I want to go to college, . I need an id.

If I want to find a new job, I need an id.

All that and more is fine. But if I want to make it where you need an id to vote...you are like, "oh hell no!"

Makes no sense.


you never will...it's all "that's wrong" is all you'll get.

[OU_Sooners75]

Vet your point is well taken, on the hypocrisy angle, but the rules for participation in the event may have simply been one person's doing - some local NAACP rule-writing dumb-****.

Doesn't matter. Still needed an id to protest...LOL



BTW, so more things you need an ID for.

Sign a Petition, you need an ID.
If I want/need food stamps, I need an ID.
If I want/need to apply for welfare, I need an ID.
If I want/need to apply for social security, I need an ID.
If I want/need to apply for medicare, I need an ID.
If I need to apply for unemployment benefits, I need an ID.
If I want to buy a house, car, or any other type of property, I need an ID.
If I want to rent a house (in most locations), I need an ID.
If I want to get utilities turned on in my name, I need an ID.
If I want to get married, I need an ID.
If I want to purchase a gun, I need an ID.
If I want to rent a car, I need an ID.
If I want to rent a hotel room, I need an ID.
If I want adopt a pet, I need an ID.
If I want a hunting and/or fishing license, I need an ID.
If I want to buy a new cell phone, I need an ID.
If I need to pick up my prescription medicine, I need an ID.
If I want to go to the casino, I need an ID.
If I want to hold a rally, or protest, I need an ID. (as this is the same as what started this thread)
If I want to donate blood or plasma, I need an ID.
If I want to buy an "M" rated video game, I need an ID.
If I want to buy certain types of paint from Wal-Mart, I need an ID.
If I want to buy certain types of "over the counter" medicines, I need an ID.
If I want to buy my daughter some nail polish from CVS, I need an ID.
If I want to work, I need an ID.
If I want to build something on my own property, I need to get a building permit, for which I need an ID.



But if I want to vote, I don't need an ID, to prove I am who I say I am. Sounds like a great chance to cheat the system!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

How many of the founding fathers had to show Photo IDs when they voted?

[olevetonahill]

How many of the founding fathers had to show Photo IDs when they voted?

None there wernt any NAACP to tell em to carry em when They Protested English rule.

[OU_Sooners75]

How many of the founding fathers had to show Photo IDs when they voted?

How many founding fathers gave women and blacks the right to vote?


I guess we should just abolish women rights and minority rights?

[stoopified]

Apparently I am just stupid working class white trash but WHaT ADULT DOES NOT HAVE SOME FORM OF OFFICIAL PHOTO ID ? Second question is how is it racist to ask all voters to provide photo IDs to prevent voter fraud?I can understand if only minorities were required to provide photo ID.Couldn't thid be solved by adding photos to Social Security guards?

[okie52]

Apparently I am just stupid working class white trash but WHaT ADULT DOES NOT HAVE SOME FORM OF OFFICIAL PHOTO ID ? Second question is how is it racist to ask all voters to provide photo IDs to prevent voter fraud?I can understand if only minorities were required to provide photo ID.Couldn't thid be solved by adding photos to Social Security guards?

Pablo?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It turns out that 758,939 registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the most easily obtained and widely used photo ID, a state driver’s license. That’s an incredible 9.2 percent of the registered electorate.

Most of the voters without driver’s licenses live in urban areas — which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live. More than 185,000 of these voters without licenses, about one-fourth of the total, live in Philadelphia — which just happens to be a Democratic stronghold where African Americans are a plurality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-gops-crime-against-voters/2012/07/09/gJQAopcCZW_story.html

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why do we waste so much time and energy arguing that a voter should have a photo ID? As long as we keep electing democrats, they will lawfully prevent that from being a requirement to the best of their ability.

[okie52]

It turns out that 758,939 registered Pennsylvania voters do not have the most easily obtained and widely used photo ID, a state driver’s license. That’s an incredible 9.2 percent of the registered electorate.

Most of the voters without driver’s licenses live in urban areas — which just happen to be places where poor people and minorities tend to live. More than 185,000 of these voters without licenses, about one-fourth of the total, live in Philadelphia — which just happens to be a Democratic stronghold where African Americans are a plurality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-gops-crime-against-voters/2012/07/09/gJQAopcCZW_story.html

Another compelling reason for voter ID.....

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yo muhfugger!! I can't get a ID since I has warrants! Yo!

[stoopified]

I know you can obtain a state ID in lieu of a driver's license in Oklahoma,to provide a person an accepted form of photo ID.I find it heard to believe that is not availible in other states.Someone who does not have photo ID does so IMHO because they don't want to be easily positively identified. I question the motivation of those who choose to live in the shadows.

[olevetonahill]

Why do we waste so much time and energy arguing that a voter should have a photo ID? As long as we keep electing democrats, they will lawfully prevent that from being a requirement to the best of their ability.

I aint arguing it. Im still laughing my ****ing *** off about the Libs requiring a Photo ID for the Protestors to Protest the requirement of a Photo ID to Vote.
No Photo ID? sure you can vote.
No Photo ID? Oh hell No you cant march in our Protest.

****ing IDIOTS.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

TOO MANY idiots who wind up at the polls voting democrat, or letting them get elected, by voting 3rd party or sitting on their hands. Doesn't help that the Media lets them get away with all their horsesh*t.

[rock on sooner]

I aint arguing it. Im still laughing my ****ing *** off about the Libs requiring a Photo ID for the Protestors to Protest the requirement of a Photo ID to Vote.
No Photo ID? sure you can vote.
No Photo ID? Oh hell No you cant march in our Protest.

****ing IDIOTS.

Ya know, Vet, I still think it's all about making sure the right protester
gets the appropriate arrest record.....